Over half of Canada’s 2025 study permits going to international students already here

Part of the adjustment process. Will be interesting to see how the provinces priorize new study permits between universities and colleges and by discipline:

The number of new study permits approved in 2025 is expected to drop by 50 per cent from last year as a growing number of the permits are going to international students changing schools or programs, or extending their studies in Canada, according to new projections.

Fewer new international students — the result of a decline in new study permit applications and approval rates — could spell trouble for the postsecondary education sector, which will continue to see enrolment drop for at least the next three years, warns an analysis by ApplyBoard based on the latest government data.

“Onshore students and students extending their studies may help Canada reach its cap targets in 2025, but this trend is unlikely to hold in future years,” said the forecast released Wednesday.

“Search engine data has shown that interest in studying in Canada has fallen at a greater rate than for Australia, the U.K. or the U.S. And with issued study permit extensions now outpacing new study permits, the flow of new international students toward Canadian institutions is weakening.”

Canada should be alarmed by the low new student count, said Meti Basiri, CEO and co-founder of the online marketplace for learning institutions and international students.

“We have effectively closed the tap,” he told the Star. “When your graduation exceeds significantly your entry into the process … two years from now you will have no students because you graduated everyone.” 

Last year, Ottawa capped the number of new study permits issued in order to reduce international student admission by 35 per cent, as Canada’s temporary resident population was soaring. The cap did not apply to students for master’s and doctoral programs or in elementary and secondary schools.

This year, the study permit caps were reduced by another 10 per cent and include those pursuing post-graduate studies in the country.

Leveraging early 2025 study permit data, ApplyBoard projects the total number of study permits issued may reach 420,000, just short of the overall cap (437,000). However, Basiri said that’s deceiving because only 163,000 of these permits are going to new international students, half of the volume admitted in 2024 and nearly 70 per cent fewer than 2023….

Source: Over half of Canada’s 2025 study permits going to international students already here

‘We have to cap population growth’: Ten quotes from Pierre Poilievre’s EXCLUSIVE Hub interview 

As close as we are likely to get in terms of numbers and levels, although he and immigration critic Rempel-Garner will have to be more precise when the government levels plan comes out in November:

“We definitely have to cap population growth. I say population growth because in the immigration–emigration formula, there are two parts to it. There’s the number of people coming in and the number going out.

Natural population growth in Canada is basically zero, in fact, it was negative last quarter. When I say population growth, I’m really talking about immigration minus emigration. We have a lot of people who are supposed to be leaving in the next year or so. They are international students and temporary foreign workers on temporary visas that are going to run out. So we’re going to need more people to leave than to come for the next several years, and that means having negative population growth in that time period.”

Source: ‘We have to cap population growth’: Ten quotes from Pierre Poilievre’s EXCLUSIVE Hub interview

CBSA investigates whether suspected senior Iranian officials were allowed entry into Canada

Screening is always a challenge but good that efforts being made:

Canadian border authorities say they are investigating or taking enforcement action in 66 cases involving suspected senior Iranian officials who may have been allowed into Canada, despite a law that bars them from entering the country or remaining in it. 

Of the 66, the Canada Border Services Agency has so far identified 20 people as inadmissible because they are believed to be senior Iranian officials, according to figures the agency provided to The Globe and Mail. 

The border agency refers such cases to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which holds hearings to decide whether someone should be allowed in the country.

One person has so far been removed from Canada for their association with the Iranian government. Two others have been deemed inadmissible and were issued deportation orders. An additional two people were deemed admissible, though the border agency is appealing those decisions. The figures provided to The Globe are current up to June 6. 

“Our strong response to suspected senior officials in the Iranian regime remains in place and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) continues to take action to stop them from seeking or finding safe haven in Canada,” agency spokesperson Rebecca Purdy said in a statement. 

Canada’s record on preventing senior Iranian government officials from entering the country is under increased scrutiny amid the war that broke out between Israel and Iran on June 12. Human-rights activists and lawyers are concerned that Iranian officials, including members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), have already managed to get into Canada and that more will attempt to do so…

Source: CBSA investigates whether suspected senior Iranian officials were allowed entry into Canada

Le plurilinguisme des immigrants est-il nécessairement une menace pour le français?

Good analysis pour la Fête Nationale du Québec:

Des répondants qui cochent plusieurs cases à « langue maternelle ». Des jeunes scolarisés dans une langue, mais qui en utilisent une autre à la maison et une autre encore devant leur écran. Des conversations entre amis ou à la table familiale dans deux langues. Un appel du travail dans une troisième. En parallèle à l’évolution des usages du français, une équipe de chercheurs tente de sortir le plurilinguisme de l’angle mort des dynamiques linguistiques.



« On a tendance à avoir une vision un peu binaire : on est soit francophone, soit anglophone, dans cette idée de deux langues officielles avec deux peuples fondateurs, mais on constate déjà que de plus en plus de gens déclarent plus d’une langue maternelle », décrit le professeur en sociologie à l’Université Laval Richard Marcoux.



L’immigration internationale est en effet le facteur dominant — et même exclusif depuis l’an dernier — de la croissance de la population. Il importe donc de mieux saisir la complexité du bagage des immigrants, estime ce cotitulaire de la Chaire de recherche du Québec sur la situation démolinguistique et les politiques linguistiques.



Parmi les 10 premiers pays d’origine des immigrants permanents au Québec l’an dernier, on retrouve le Cameroun, la Tunisie, l’Algérie, le Maroc, Haïti, la Côte d’Ivoire et le Liban. Ce sont des pays où certains usages du français existent, sans que les immigrants qui en viennent n’entrent dans la case de plus en plus étroite des francophones de langue maternelle.



Pour obtenir un portrait plus juste de l’état des choses, il faut dépasser les critères plus traditionnels comme la langue maternelle ou la langue parlée à la maison : « Ça ne suffit plus et c’est moins représentatif de l’immigration actuelle », juge celui qui préside aussi le Comité consultatif sur la statistique linguistique de Statistique Canada.



Ce « plurilinguisme dès la naissance » est encore mal saisi par les indicateurs les plus couramment cités. C’est différent, regarder la première langue parlée à la maison et considérer toutes celles qui sont parlées entre les murs privés, mettaient par exemple de l’avant M. Marcoux et ses collègues sociologues Jean-Pierre Corbeil et Victor Piché, dans une note de recherche de 2023.


« Ce qu’on constate, c’est que ces immigrants arrivent en disant : “Moi, ma langue maternelle, c’est l’arabe ET le français. J’ai été socialisé dans les deux langues, avec un univers qui se passait parfois dans l’une, parfois dans l’autre” », explique M. Marcoux plus en détail. « C’est différent de dire : “J’ai été élevé à Rabat, à Alger ou à Cotonou” », ajoute le professeur qui revient tout juste de Dakar, au Sénégal.

Cohabitation

Le plurilinguisme qu’il décrit colle à l’expérience de Hocine Taleb. Arrivé d’Algérie à 18 ans, il occupe maintenant, à l’aube de la trentaine, un emploi en informatique où il utilise majoritairement le français et, à l’occasion, l’anglais. Durant son enfance, il a été scolarisé en arabe à l’école publique. Il est exposé au français partout dans l’espace public, surtout à la télévision, et il parle kabyle avec sa famille et ses amis.

Alors quelle case coche-t-il ? « Techniquement, ma langue maternelle est le kabyle, mais aujourd’hui, je pense davantage en français que dans les autres langues », explique-t-il. Le kabyle reste la langue du dimanche chez ses parents, et celle qui décrit le mieux les plats délicieux préparés par sa mère.

Même s’il est au Québec depuis plus d’une décennie, on lui trouve encore le plus souvent un accent « de Français de France », un pays où il n’a pas vécu. Sa copine a des origines à la fois chinoise et québécoise ; elle a grandi d’abord en anglais puis en français, ce qui fait qu’ensemble, ils utilisent encore un mélange des deux.

C’est l’arabe finalement, « une langue imposée par l’école », qui est le moins présent dans ses journées, au point où il ne le parle pratiquement plus.

Un élan vers le français

Preuve s’il en est que l’on « naît de moins en moins francophone, on le devient », comme a déjà dit M. Marcoux lors d’une entrevue précédente. Il travaille notamment avec le professeur Koia Jean Martial Kouame, basé en Côte d’Ivoire, qui dit que le français est maintenant une langue africaine, un butin de guerre que les gens se sont réappropriés, tant au nord, à l’ouest qu’au centre de ce continent monumental.

Ensemble, ils tentent de préciser la place de la langue française dans une trentaine de métropoles différentes, toutes plurilingues. « Le français est la langue de communication, d’échange à Abidjan, mais pas à Bamako. À Dakar, on voit que la population se wolofise [parle de plus en plus la langue locale wolof], en même temps qu’elle se francise », note M. Marcoux.

Le Rwanda, parfois décrit comme ayant « basculé » du côté anglophone, n’a en fait jamais été francophone, note-t-il aussi, pour illustrer les nuances possibles. Les élites favorisent en effet l’anglais, mais les journaux, les banques et une partie de l’administration fonctionne beaucoup plus en kinyarwanda : « Depuis qu’on mesure, la proportion de francophones n’a jamais dépassé 8 % ! », note le professeur québécois.

C’est donc en quelque sorte deux élans inverses qu’il documente : du plurilinguisme vers le français en Afrique subsaharienne et au Maghreb, et du français vers plusieurs langues au Québec. Le point d’arrivée ? Une affirmation plurielle d’une langue décomplexée, un polycentrisme qui déplace le centre de gravité de la norme parisienne.

Pas une menace

À l’inverse de ce que les détracteurs de M. Marcoux tentent de lui coller comme étiquette, le chercheur affirme : « On part du consensus que le français est fragile et il a besoin d’une attention particulière. Mais on ne voit pas le plurilinguisme comme une menace à la langue. On dit seulement qu’il faut prendre la réalité en compte, et cette réalité est le plurilinguisme. »

Il n’est donc pas question, pour lui, de reculer sur les politiques déjà en place, surtout sur l’obligation d’envoyer ses enfants à l’école en français. Il veut plutôt qu’on cesse de voir la langue plurielle comme un facteur d’anglicisation ou de déclin du français. « On veut, nous aussi, que nos institutions continuent à fonctionner en français, mais on ne s’inquiète pas quand les gens échangent entre eux dans des conversations privées en arabe ou en espagnol. Ce n’est pas ça la menace à mes yeux », conclut l’expert.

Source: Le plurilinguisme des immigrants est-il nécessairement une menace pour le français?

Respondents who check several boxes in “mother tongue”. Young people educated in one language, but who use another at home and another in front of their screen. Conversations between friends or at the family table in two languages. A call from work in a third. In parallel with the evolution of French uses, a team of researchers is trying to get plurilingualism out of the blind spot of linguistic dynamics.

“We tend to have a somewhat binary vision: we are either French-speaking or English-speaking, in this idea of two official languages with two founding peoples, but we already see that more and more people declare more than one mother tongue,” describes the professor of sociology at Laval University Richard Marcoux.

International immigration is indeed the dominant – and even exclusive factor since last year – of population growth. It is therefore important to better grasp the complexity of immigrants’ baggage, says this co-holder of the Quebec Research Chair on the demolinguistic situation and language policies.

Among the top 10 countries of origin of permanent immigrants in Quebec last year, we find Cameroon, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Haiti, Ivory Coast and Lebanon. These are countries where certain uses of French exist, without immigrants who come from them entering the increasingly narrow box of French-speaking mother tongues.

To get a fairer picture of the state of affairs, it is necessary to go beyond more traditional criteria such as the mother tongue or the language spoken at home: “It is no longer enough and it is less representative of current immigration,” says the one who also chairs the Statistical Canada Linguistic Statistics Advisory Committee.

This “multilingualism from birth” is still poorly grasped by the most commonly cited indicators. It’s different, looking at the first language spoken at home and considering all those that are spoken between private walls, put for example M. Marcoux and his fellow sociologists Jean-Pierre Corbeil and Victor Piché, in a 2023 research note.

“What we see is that these immigrants arrive saying: “Me, my mother tongue, is Arabic AND French. I was socialized in both languages, with a universe that sometimes happened in one, sometimes in the other,” explains Mr. Marcoux in more detail. “It’s different to say: “I was raised in Rabat, Algiers or Cotonou,” adds the teacher who has just returned from Dakar, Senegal.

Living with somebody

The plurilingualism he describes is in line with Hocine Taleb’s experience. During his childhood, he was educated in Arabic in public school. He is exposed to French everywhere in the public space, especially on television, and he speaks Kabyle with his family and friends.

So which box does it tick? “Technically, my mother tongue is Kabyle, but today, I think more in French than in other languages,” he explains. Kabyle remains the Sunday language of his parents, and the one that best describes the delicious dishes prepared by his mother.

Even though he has been in Quebec for more than a decade, he is still most often found with a “French” accent, a country where he has not lived. His girlfriend has both Chinese and Quebec origins; she grew up first in English and then in French, which means that together, they still use a mixture of the two.

It is finally Arabic, “a language imposed by the school”, which is the least present in his days, to the point where he hardly speaks it anymore.

A boost towards French

Proof if it is that we are “born less and less French-speaking, we become one”, as Mr. He works in particular with Professor Koia Jean Martial Kouame, based in Côte d’Ivoire, who says that French is now an African language, a war booty that people have reappropriated, both in the north, west and center of this monumental continent.

Together, they try to specify the place of the French language in about thirty different metropolises, all multilingual. “French is the language of communication, of exchange in Abidjan, but not in Bamako. In Dakar, we see that the population is Wolofing [speaking the local Wolof language more and more], at the same time as it is Frenchizing, “notes Mr. Marcoux

Rwanda, sometimes described as having “swung” to the English-speaking side, has in fact never been French-speaking, he also notes, to illustrate the possible nuances. The elites indeed favor English, but newspapers, banks and part of the administration work much more in kinyarwanda: “Since we measure, the proportion of French speakers has never exceeded 8%! “, notes the Quebec teacher.

It is therefore in a way two inverse impulses that it documents: from multilingualism to French in sub-Saharan Africa and the Maghreb, and from French to several languages in Quebec. The point of arrival? A plural affirmation of an uninhibited language, a polycentrism that displaces the center of gravity of the Parisian norm.

Not a threat

Contrary to what Mr. Marcoux’s critics try to label him, the researcher says: “We start from the consensus that French is fragile and needs special attention. But we do not see multilingualism as a threat to language. We only say that we must take reality into account, and this reality is multilingualism. ”

There is therefore no question, for him, of going back on the policies already in place, especially on the obligation to send his children to school in French. Rather, he wants us to stop seeing the plural language as a factor of Anglicization or decline of French. “We also want our institutions to continue to function in French, but we don’t worry when people exchange with each other in private conversations in Arabic or Spanish. That’s not the threat in my eyes, “concludes the expert.

Theo Argitis: Canada’s great immigration experiment is ending 

Good take:

For nearly the first time in our history, Canada’s population growth has come to a near standstill. Remarkably, the state of things is such that we are celebrating this as a policy success and long-overdue correction.

Statistics Canada released its quarterly population estimates, showing the country grew by 20,000 people in the first three months of this year. That’s the third weakest quarterly increase in data going back to 1946—and less than one-tenth the average quarterly gain over the past three years.

Four provinces and one territory—Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, and Yukon—actually posted population declines.

The numbers reflect the dramatic reversal of policy late last year by the former Trudeau government, when it abruptly tightened permit approvals for international students and foreign workers after overseeing record immigration levels since 2021.

Under the plan, the intake of new permanent residents, or what the government calls immigrants, would be lowered from 485,000 in 2024 to 365,000 by 2027.

The number of non-permanent residents living in Canada—which had increased five-fold since 2015 to more than 3 million—would be cut by about one million over two years.

That post-pandemic rush of newcomers exacerbated housing shortages, strained public services, and disrupted the job market. It was perhaps the worst policy error of the past two decades, and in need of correction.

But, ironically, the sharp reversal in policy is now creating its own problems, impacting everything from demand for cell phones and banking services to funding for universities and colleges.

The whole episode has been a mass social experiment that will be studied for years.

“You’re going to see a ton of research on this, no question, because it’s like this little experiment here in Canada that no other country has done to this extent,’’ said Mikal Skuterud, a labour economist at the University of Waterloo and director of the Canadian Labour Economics Forum. “And there’s all kinds of dimensions to how this impacted the economy.”

The latest numbers suggest the government’s curbs are beginning to work. While still elevated, the number of non-permanent residents has started to decline—down almost 90,000 from its peak in September. The number of permanent residents, or immigrants, is now running at an annual pace closer to 400,000, down from nearly half a million.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has essentially adopted the Trudeau plan, which if successful will keep the current population steady at about the current 41.5 million level over the next two years. It would mark the first time since Confederation in 1867 that the country saw zero population growth.

Yet when viewed over the full horizon, the curbs will simply bring the average population growth rate for the decade back to about 1.3 percent, which is much closer to historical norms. We’re simply correcting a major policy anomaly.

Looking back, it’s too early to know for certain what effect the population surge had on wages and joblessness, according to Skuterud, who notes that younger Canadians, in particular, may have borne the brunt of it, given they tend to compete with newcomers for entry-level jobs.

What’s less in dispute is how the immigration surge lowered average living standards.

The evidence suggests that looser entry requirements over recent years brought in lower quality workers. Because of this, the economy failed to grow in line with population. The size of the pie didn’t grow fast enough to keep up with the number of people trying to take a slice.

The end result was the erosion of public confidence in immigration, which could linger in Canadian politics for years.

This is particularly true among younger Canadians, who now appear more open to curbing immigration levels. For many, tighter labour markets and more affordable housing—not higher population numbers—are the priority. Slower immigration supports those goals.

So, how did the government misjudge the situation so badly? And is there a lesson here for the Carney government?

Part of the problem stemmed from the unique distortions of the pandemic. The government overestimated labour shortages and then overcompensated by opening the immigration floodgates.

But there was also a broader miscalculation. Trudeau emerged from the pandemic with renewed ambitions and a belief that he had an expanded mandate to pursue transformative change, including on the immigration front.

Ambition, however, has a way of outpacing reality. And overshooting is always a risk when leaders grow too confident in their ability to enact change.

Carney is now putting forward an ambitious agenda of his own. Whether he’ll draw any lessons from Canada’s great immigration experiment remains to be seen.

Source: Theo Argitis: Canada’s great immigration experiment is ending

Keeney:Restoring Canada Special SeriesPart III: National Sovereignty in the Age of Mass Migration

A conservative view of immigration, citizenship and belonging, overly nostalgic and assimilationist rather than the more balanced approach of integration and accommodation into a shared history and evolving identity:

…Scruton, Vance, Williams and Stove offer a much-needed corrective to the moral confusion that pervades Canada’s immigration debate. They remind us that a nation is not a moral abstraction to be administered by technocrats, nor a blank canvas upon which to project fashionable ideals of universal justice. It is, instead, a concrete inheritance – a web of affections, memories and obligations – into which we are born or invited and to which we owe fidelity. A healthy polity depends not on the erasure of boundaries but on their moral intelligibility. Only within the thick texture of family, neighbourhood, language, tradition and the other elements collectively making up community life do our ethical duties take on substance and meaning.

Canada’s immigration crisis is, ultimately, a crisis of meaning. The liberal vision imagines a world of rights-bearing individuals, untethered from history or place, free to roam wherever they will and with as much claim upon their destination as the locals. But real nations are not weightless constructs. They are moral communities.

Prioritizing the needs of distant strangers – recall the “telescopic philanthropy” of Dickens’ Mrs. Jellyby – over those of one’s fellow citizens is not, as our political class would have it, the peak of moral enlightenment; rather, it is the abdication of the responsibilities that make moral life possible. Such a stance reflects not compassion and generosity but forgetfulness: forgetfulness of the fragile bonds that sustain our civic life and the quiet duties we owe one another. In the name of unlimited kindness, we risk dissolving the forms of life that make kindness more than sentiment. At stake is more than simply a policy debate, but a philosophical one: What does it mean to belong? What do we owe, and to whom? If the answer is to be serious, it must begin in the ordered loves that bind us to home, history and each other.

Canada’s immigration crisis is, ultimately, a crisis of meaning. The liberal vision imagines a world of rights-bearing individuals, untethered from history or place, free to roam wherever they will and with as much claim upon their destination as the locals. But real nations are not weightless constructs. They are moral communities. Canada must rediscover the ethical grammar that views obligation not as descending from metaphysical abstraction but beginning with the individual and radiating outward. It must affirm that to love one’s own is not to hate or ignore the other, but to honour the structure of human affection and duty. This is not a call for exclusion, but for rootedness; not for parochialism, but for prudence.

Canada’s globalist supporters have grown frustrated with the increasing discontent of Canadians who perceive that relentless immigration is increasingly unravelling the nation’s cohesion. Although this unrest is real, it should not be read as a rejection of compassion but as a plea to restore a moral order that values the immediate bonds of community and country over the abstract claims of universalism. Canada faces a defining choice: continue eroding its identity for a borderless vision or reaffirm the deep loves that sustain a moral community. Only by grounding itself in these concrete affections can Canada maintain its humanity and act with true justice in a divided world.

Patrick Keeney is a Canadian writer who divides his time between Kelowna, B.C. and Thailand.

Source: Restoring Canada Special Series Part III: National Sovereignty in the Age of Mass Migration

Carney government clarifies Canadian border bill’s asylum changes as critics call for complete withdrawal

Useful clarification on information sharing although it will not assuage all concerns:

…In a new notice posted on its website, Canada’s Immigration Department tried to offer some clarity to Bill C-2 to address critics’ concerns.

It said the proposed rules on asylum eligibility would only apply to refugee claims made on or after June 3, 2025, by anyone who first arrived in Canada after June 24, 2020, and wouldn’t be retroactive to those who already had a claim in the system before Bill C-2 was tabled.

Officials said the changes to immigration information sharing are limited to federal and provincial governments, and do not concern information-sharing activities with the U.S. It’s for the domestic purposes of confirming identities, detecting frauds, and carrying out law and border enforcement activities and investigations. The notice also listed public interest grounds that would potentially prompt immigration officials to cancel, suspend or change immigration documents.

“The government is committed to rebuilding Canadians’ trust in the immigration system,” the Immigration Department told the Star in an email.

“We’re improving security at the Canada-U.S. border and making our immigration and asylum systems more resilient and more responsive to new and developing pressures. To make things clear: The measures announced in Bill C-2 are about protecting the integrity of our system while building a safer and more equitable Canada.”

Source: Carney government clarifies Canadian border bill’s asylum changes as critics call for complete withdrawal

Turcotte: Under pressure: How immigration is becoming a political fault line in Canada 

Pollara’s take on shifting attitudes. Not much new compared to other public opinion research. The question remains whether the Trudeau government’s trimming of immigration levels, and the Carney government’s maintaining the approach, will result in a positive shift in attitudes or not:

New polling on Canadian attitudes towards immigration

Pollara has been tracking Canadian attitudes toward immigration for decades, and to commemorate our 40th anniversary, we revisited this critical issue in a new national study. In a recent survey of 2,500 Canadian adults conducted from April 10 to 16, the most striking finding is the sharp increase in the number of Canadians who believe immigration levels are too high. When we first posed this question in 2002, only 34 percent held that view. Today, that figure has risen to 60 percent—a substantial 26-point jump that reflects a significant and lasting shift in public sentiment.i

Alberta stands out as the most critical province, with 65 percent of its residents saying immigration levels are excessive. Quebec (63 percent) and Ontario (62 percent) also show high levels of concern, reinforcing a regional pattern that now poses significant political and policy challenges for the federal government.

Cultural anxiety and fractured identity

The study finds a growing unease about the cultural implications of immigration. In 2002, most Canadians (58 percent) believed immigration enriched the national culture. By 2025, this consensus has eroded: just 33 percent of Canadians now hold the same view.

When examining the perceived cultural impact of immigration, the divide across regions is particularly striking in Quebec and Alberta.

Just 26 percent of Quebecers think accepting immigrants from different cultures makes our culture stronger, while 39 percent, the most of any province, think this weakens our culture. Alberta follows (29 percent strengthens/35 percent weakens), pointing to a notable undercurrent of skepticism towards multiculturalism. In contrast, more British Columbians (38 percent strengthens/31 percent weakens) and Atlantic Canadians (35 percent strengthens/28 percent weakens) express more favourable, if still cautious, assessments of immigration’s cultural contributions.

Signs of erosion 

Economic concerns around immigration are more pronounced than ever. In 2002, 40 percent of Canadians believed immigration increased unemployment. Today, a majority of Canadians (52 percent) share the same view. Once again, we see interesting regional differences with Albertans (56 percent) being the most worried.  Also, Canadians with college or high school education (55 percent) are particularly concerned about the impact of immigration on unemployment.

In the same vein, the overall impression about immigration has soured. When asked, “In general, what effect does immigration to this country have on your community?” almost half of Canadians (49 percent) back in 2002 felt positively. Twenty-three years later, only about one-third (35 percent) feel the same way.

This erosion of trust in immigration carries direct and growing consequences for the Carney government, which must now navigate a political landscape where support for immigration can no longer be assumed as a default consensus. For years, Canada’s pro-immigration stance was widely seen as a point of national pride—an expression of openness, pragmatism, and multicultural identity. But that consensus is beginning to fracture. Rising economic pressures, strained public services, and growing cultural anxiety have altered the public mood. What was once a source of political unity is now becoming a point of division.

The Carney government’s electoral focus on the external threat posed by Trump—while understandable and effective in mobilizing voters—has come at the cost of deeper engagement with emerging domestic tensions. The Trump issue remains real and immediate, particularly in the realms of trade, national security, and global democratic stability. But as the old saying goes, “This too shall pass.” The danger lies in mistaking a temporary crisis for a permanent framework of governance.

Source: DeepDive: Under pressure: How immigration is becoming a political fault line in Canada

Slim majority of Canadians found reduced immigration levels still too high: government polling

Not that surprising as echoes other public opinion research:

Shortly after cutting immigration levels, the federal immigration department heard through government-funded polling that a slight majority of Canadians still found this year’s number too high.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada commissioned the survey as part of its annual tracking of public sentiment towards immigration and reported it publicly as part of the government’s disclosures on its public opinion research.

The survey, which was done last November, followed the federal government’s announcement that it would reduce the number of permanent residents by nearly 100,000 in 2025. The target was set at 395,000, down from 485,000 in 2024.

The survey found that 54 per cent of Canadians said they “felt there are too many immigrants coming to Canada.” Another 34 per cent said they felt the number was fine, according to the report.

“When informed that Canada plans to admit 395,000 immigrants as permanent residents in 2025, 52 per cent said that it is too many, 37 per cent that this is about the right number and five per cent that this is too few,” it read.

“When informed that 395,000 immigrants is roughly 20 per cent fewer than Canada planned to admit in 2024, 44 per cent feel this is too many, 39 per cent that this number is about right and 13 per cent that it is too few.”

A spokesperson for Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab said in a statement that work has begun on setting immigration levels for the next two years, with that plan scheduled to be tabled in the fall, as it has in years past.

“(Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada) will continue work together with partners to establish the best paths forward to ensure that Canada is in position to attract the best talent in the world, while ensuring that overall immigration levels are more sustainable, and that the integrity of the system’s programs remain in tact,” wrote Renée LeBlanc Proctor, the minister’s press secretary. 

“We won’t speculate about specific future policy decisions at this time, but note that work on the 2026-2028 levels plan is already underway.”

Determining how many more permanent and temporary residents Canada will allow into the country has been challenged by changing public sentiments around immigration, connected to concerns regarding housing affordability, the availability of doctors and other social supports.

While federal officials say immigration accounted for nearly 98 per cent of Canada’s population growth in 2023, helping to offset an aging population and bringing the country’s population to 41 people million last year, housing experts, economists, and the Bank of Canada all warned that it has contributed to the country’s housing shortage.

Keith Neuman, senior associate at the Environics Institute, a non-profit that has been conducting public opinion research on attitudes around immigration for the past four decades, says Canadians’ perspectives have changed in terms of people thinking about how many immigrants the country could handle.

He says that represents a shift from what research has shown in the past, where Canadians previously focused on who immigrants were and where they were coming from.

“The capacity issue has never really been something that Canadians have thought about, up to this point. And so that’s where the real shift has happened,” he said in an interview.

“It is now become a public issue and a political issue.”…

Source: Slim majority of Canadians found reduced immigration levels still too high: government polling

Ottawa told Trump that visa crackdown led to fewer Indians, Bangladeshis illegally crossing the border

Of note:

Ottawa flagged to the incoming Trump administration that it had stopped more than 2,000 Indians and Bangladeshis from boarding flights to Canada, resulting in a drop in illegal border crossings to the U.S., internal government briefing documents show. 

In an attempt to reassure President Donald Trump and his border czar, Tom Homan, that Canada is serious about clamping down on illegal crossings, Ottawa lauded investigations into visa fraud that targeted Indians and Bangladeshis.

The previous Liberal government, under Justin Trudeau, was trying to dissuade Mr. Trump from imposing tariffs on Canada, saying it was improving border security to reduce illegal crossings and fentanyl smuggling. 

After he was elected, Mr. Trump had threatened to slap tariffs on goods entering the U.S. from Canada on his first day in office, unless Ottawa curbed the flow of drugs and illegal migrants across their border. Canada was among the countries that were eventually hit by tariffs. 

Briefing documents, drawn up days before Mr. Trump took office on Jan. 20, outline “key messages for outreach with U.S. interlocutors.” The Global Affairs papers, dated Jan. 15, set out efforts to reinforce border security that are “already showing results.”

One document set out messages for a January meeting between then-foreign affairs minister Mélanie Joly and Mr. Homan. “The number of illegal crossings from Canada into the U.S. continues to decline, thanks to our tougher visa policy and practices for Mexican, Indian and Bangladeshi travellers,” it says. 

It adds that the government has also “taken enforcement action to address smuggling through First Nation reserves.”

The internal Global Affairs briefing documents say “over 2,000 people of Indian and Bangladeshi origin have been denied boarding on flights to Canada following a targeted review of visa issuance for cases of fraud … since March 2024.” 

They add that “in summer 2024, IRCC refocused efforts on screening and processing for high-risk countries,” referring to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. …

Source: Ottawa told Trump that visa crackdown led to fewer Indians, Bangladeshis illegally crossing the border